A World of Neo-Illiterates?
Published in La Crónica de Hoy
(Mexico) on 12 May 2016
by Óscar Espinosa Villarreal (link to
original)
It was not easy to come up with a headline for this column that would say exactly what I want or what I may want to suggest. I considered titles such as: “Will We Have to Learn How to Read Again?” “Illiterate Politicians or Illiterate Citizens?” and “Learn to Read!” In the end, I chose this one, because I am convinced that some — either the politicians or the people — are not able to clearly read the signs and are opting for, quite frankly, risky alternatives.
I am more convinced of this point after reading a splendid article in the Washington Post written by Max Ehrenfreund and Jim Tankersley, titled "What Donald Trump Wants To Do to America," where, among other things, they list his inaccuracies and contradictions. Further signs can be seen in the election of Rodrigo Duterte, an "anti-system" presidential candidate for the Philippines, and in how a comedian governs Guatemala. It is worrisome what is happening in the minds of voters who lean toward these options and in the inability of traditional politicians to reinvent themselves and win public favor. Of this new recipe, what specifically alarms me are the potential consequences that may arise.
In the current American electoral experience – in the case of Sanders, a Democrat, and Trump, a Republican – I see an electorate determined to vote for everything that distances itself from what we know as the establishment, going for whatever does not resemble that which has traditionally identified as "political." These days, personal attacks, hostilities toward journalists or immigrants and the shouting of falsehoods and generalities appear to be more convincing.
We have thus seen Donald Trump advance to become the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States, with a platform that cannot even be qualified as coherent. But the oddest thing of all is that his proposals contain measures that differ from everything the party, of which he will apparently become the candidate, has traditionally stood for or defended.
As the above-mentioned article points out, beyond proposing concrete things like reviewing free trade, deporting immigrants, blocking access to Muslim refugees or building a wall on the border with Mexico, everything else is vague and contradictory. His tax plan, for example, includes a significant reduction of the corporate tax rate and a lower income tax on the country's wealthiest. With regard to spending, while talking about raising defense and infrastructure spending, he supports maintaining the social security system and promises to end the country's debt over the next eight years. Obviously no economic analyst has come forward who considers these proposals to be compatible, although of course they are cheered by the Republican elites who will benefit from the effects more than the poor.
On Social Security, the Republican Party opposed the proposal to increase public spending, maintaining that partial privatization is necessary because public spending is financially unsustainable. Nevertheless, Trump said he will keep the program as it exists today. But he constantly changes his mind, and this issue has not been an exception among his inaccuracies or open contradictions.
On trade, even though Republicans have agreed with Obama on the importance and desirability of continuing the path of free trade, they have made public stances in pursuit of a more protectionist policy with regards to Mexico and China. One proposal is to charge a 35 percent tax on Mexican and Chinese imports and 20 percent on goods from other countries. They have also opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the free trade agreement, stating it was wrong to allow U.S. companies to build manufacturing plants outside of their borders, a statement attractive to voters whose jobs moved to factories abroad.
In the case of Mr. Duterte, the winner of the presidential election in the Philippines, who was elected to the cry of, "Forget the laws on human rights!" he rose above his closest contender by more than 5 million votes. To reduce poverty, he says crime has to be stopped and to do so, "We must skip an ineffective and corrupt justice system and order security forces to eliminate criminals."* He also warned that if he were elected president, he would do exactly as he did while he was mayor. “All of you who are into drugs, you sons of bitches, I will really kill you.” Furthermore, the lawyer and mayor threatens to establish a single-man government if legislators disobey him.
In a country where 80 percent of its inhabitants are fervent Catholics, Duterte gave as far as to launch his campaign with a speech that insulted Pope Francis, calling the Pope a "son of a whore" for causing traffic jams during a visit to the archipelago. And this is the candidate who just achieved an overwhelming victory in the race for the presidency of his country.
I know more than one of my readers will say I am refusing to recognize that all of this is, for the most part, the result of a population being fed up with the lack of substantive solutions to problems that worry the majority of citizens. That's not it; I'm not naïve and I get it. But aside from understanding what you see on the surface, my concerns are based on whether these are actually solutions at all. I cannot forget the way Hitler came to power in Germany, brought there with the frenzied support of masses as irrational as they were intolerant.
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, the exact quote could not be sourced.
I am more convinced of this point after reading a splendid article in the Washington Post written by Max Ehrenfreund and Jim Tankersley, titled "What Donald Trump Wants To Do to America," where, among other things, they list his inaccuracies and contradictions. Further signs can be seen in the election of Rodrigo Duterte, an "anti-system" presidential candidate for the Philippines, and in how a comedian governs Guatemala. It is worrisome what is happening in the minds of voters who lean toward these options and in the inability of traditional politicians to reinvent themselves and win public favor. Of this new recipe, what specifically alarms me are the potential consequences that may arise.
In the current American electoral experience – in the case of Sanders, a Democrat, and Trump, a Republican – I see an electorate determined to vote for everything that distances itself from what we know as the establishment, going for whatever does not resemble that which has traditionally identified as "political." These days, personal attacks, hostilities toward journalists or immigrants and the shouting of falsehoods and generalities appear to be more convincing.
We have thus seen Donald Trump advance to become the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States, with a platform that cannot even be qualified as coherent. But the oddest thing of all is that his proposals contain measures that differ from everything the party, of which he will apparently become the candidate, has traditionally stood for or defended.
As the above-mentioned article points out, beyond proposing concrete things like reviewing free trade, deporting immigrants, blocking access to Muslim refugees or building a wall on the border with Mexico, everything else is vague and contradictory. His tax plan, for example, includes a significant reduction of the corporate tax rate and a lower income tax on the country's wealthiest. With regard to spending, while talking about raising defense and infrastructure spending, he supports maintaining the social security system and promises to end the country's debt over the next eight years. Obviously no economic analyst has come forward who considers these proposals to be compatible, although of course they are cheered by the Republican elites who will benefit from the effects more than the poor.
On Social Security, the Republican Party opposed the proposal to increase public spending, maintaining that partial privatization is necessary because public spending is financially unsustainable. Nevertheless, Trump said he will keep the program as it exists today. But he constantly changes his mind, and this issue has not been an exception among his inaccuracies or open contradictions.
On trade, even though Republicans have agreed with Obama on the importance and desirability of continuing the path of free trade, they have made public stances in pursuit of a more protectionist policy with regards to Mexico and China. One proposal is to charge a 35 percent tax on Mexican and Chinese imports and 20 percent on goods from other countries. They have also opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the free trade agreement, stating it was wrong to allow U.S. companies to build manufacturing plants outside of their borders, a statement attractive to voters whose jobs moved to factories abroad.
In the case of Mr. Duterte, the winner of the presidential election in the Philippines, who was elected to the cry of, "Forget the laws on human rights!" he rose above his closest contender by more than 5 million votes. To reduce poverty, he says crime has to be stopped and to do so, "We must skip an ineffective and corrupt justice system and order security forces to eliminate criminals."* He also warned that if he were elected president, he would do exactly as he did while he was mayor. “All of you who are into drugs, you sons of bitches, I will really kill you.” Furthermore, the lawyer and mayor threatens to establish a single-man government if legislators disobey him.
In a country where 80 percent of its inhabitants are fervent Catholics, Duterte gave as far as to launch his campaign with a speech that insulted Pope Francis, calling the Pope a "son of a whore" for causing traffic jams during a visit to the archipelago. And this is the candidate who just achieved an overwhelming victory in the race for the presidency of his country.
I know more than one of my readers will say I am refusing to recognize that all of this is, for the most part, the result of a population being fed up with the lack of substantive solutions to problems that worry the majority of citizens. That's not it; I'm not naïve and I get it. But aside from understanding what you see on the surface, my concerns are based on whether these are actually solutions at all. I cannot forget the way Hitler came to power in Germany, brought there with the frenzied support of masses as irrational as they were intolerant.
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, the exact quote could not be sourced.
Does the writer see sweet reason in the followers of ” Wall St ” Hillary ? If he thinks Bernie Sanders supporters are know-nothing , nihilistic fanatics, mere Hillary haters, he himself wallows in the New Illiteracy.